gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : Looking north (II)

Mon, 9 May 2011 19:11:32 +0000

That's a silly thing to say. Based on what evidence? Or are you just using the royal "we" here?

Macleans.ca : Looking north (II)

Mon, 9 May 2011 19:08:38 +0000

You must have pretty bad allergies.

Macleans.ca : Looking north (II)

Mon, 9 May 2011 19:06:38 +0000

That's not what "agoraphobic" means. More like "afraid of wide open spaces". It's ironic that you claimed Canadians are more agoraphobic considering that our country has so many vast, open spaces. Canada must be an agoraphobe's nightmare.

Macleans.ca : Looking north (II)

Mon, 9 May 2011 18:55:59 +0000

No, we haven't. Also, seriously? Agoraphobic?

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 06:57:37 +0000

I didn't read it as any kind of criticism. I'm just expanding, clumsily, on my commenting philosophy. I get a lot of enjoyment out of sharing my views with fellow interested and engaged citizens. I do this because it's fun. I'm not too worried if I invest time in a comment that gets ignored and thumbed down, because such is life. It's important to approach things philosophically and be patient with people. By the way, I should mention that I really enjoy reading your comments, despite the fact that you're from Edmonton and I'm from your superior neighbour to the south. ;-)

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 06:15:42 +0000

Personally, my time is limited, and I'm not always able to respond as much as I'd like because I'm too busy with other stuff. Sometimes I just thumb a reply up and respectfully let it stand on its own, as the natural end to the thread—the final word.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 04:34:02 +0000

I don't share your desire to "cripple the parties financially". To me, the whole concept of financially crippling political parties is undemocratic.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 04:20:24 +0000

I think an overall cap is undemocratic. Political parties are a fundamental component of our democracy. Why should we be in the business of denying Canadians the right to contribute $50 (or even $1000) to a political party they support, just because some artificial limit has been reached?

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 04:01:59 +0000

I think the best approach is to wean the parties off the subsidy gradually, by reducing the subsidy every year for the next four years. This gives all parties time to adjust.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 02:16:51 +0000

I don't think that corporations should fund political parties, either. I think that citizens should contribute, within the limits of donation caps that make it impossible for individual donors to have much influence. Ideally, I'd prefer a totally non-subsidized version of the current system, with caps that are somewhat higher to compensate for the loss of the per-vote subsidy and the tax credit.

Macleans.ca : The detained documents

Sat, 7 May 2011 02:05:10 +0000

It seems as though you actually want Canada to be prosecuted by the ICC. Do you?

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 01:40:32 +0000

Oh, I totally agree that the subsidies should end. I'm just pointing out that killing the subsidies might have unintended consequences.

Macleans.ca : The detained documents

Sat, 7 May 2011 01:32:27 +0000

Nope. A Canadian documentary filmmaker with a not-so-subtle agenda asked an ICC prosecutor a few leading questions. Of course he's going to reply that every country is subject to the same rules and standards. How could he not? The fact is there are hundreds of cases around the world right now that are more worthy of the ICC's attention. Canada is a boy scout and everyone knows this. Meanwhile, lots of other countries are committing heinous war crimes on almost a daily basis, and the ICC isn't going after them. There's probably a very good reason why Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo wasn't available for further comments when the Toronto Star tried to reach him. I'm sure he regrets talking to Toronto filmmaker Barry Stevens in the first place.

Macleans.ca : The detained documents

Sat, 7 May 2011 01:16:18 +0000

Poppycock and balderdash. It's not going to happen.

Macleans.ca : "That's kind of the sentiment we're getting at"

Sat, 7 May 2011 01:11:24 +0000

There are things we can do, consistent with freedom of speech, to prevent this in future. We can take away the public funds that subsidize this garbage. This wouldn't prevent much. Parties that are good at raising money from their base would still be able to pay for attack ads. And what's a good way to fire up the base so they donate more money? Why, advertising, of course. Thus you run the risk of a self-perpetuating cycle for parties that are successful at raising funds. Meanwhile, cash-strapped parties that suck at fundraising would be effectively muted.

Macleans.ca : The detained documents

Sat, 7 May 2011 00:54:48 +0000

Fearless prediction: The ICC will never, ever come after Canada for war crimes, because that would be absurd. Our hands are cleaner than most. We're not perfect, but we're pretty damn good.

Macleans.ca : The Twitter effect

Fri, 6 May 2011 20:51:42 +0000

Have you commented under different names in the past, or are you relatively new here?

Macleans.ca : The Twitter effect

Fri, 6 May 2011 20:46:13 +0000

Hugh Windsor then goes on to use an example of Kady O'Malley liveblogging an F-35 committee hearing to illustrate what he sees as a problem. Did we have to know all of this trivia immediately or could it have waited till a regular newscast that might sieve some wheat from the chaff. This blog, which takes up the same time and resources as a journalist doing real work, does nothing to address one of the main issues surrounding the F-35 purchase. He makes it clear that he doesn't see Kady's liveblogging experiments as "serious journalism". I don't think this is fair. Liveblogging and Twittering are no substitutes for sober, in depth analysis and hard reporting, but they don't have to be. New platforms can supplement traditional journalism, in new and interesting ways, without overshadowing it or replacing it.

Macleans.ca : A personal reflection on the Ignatieff Era

Fri, 6 May 2011 01:59:56 +0000

Yeesh. Give it a rest, Dot. You really need to learn to walk away after you've been schooled.

Macleans.ca : Back to school

Thu, 5 May 2011 22:08:09 +0000

You mean like being elected? Rae became an MP in 1978, the same year that Ignatieff left Canada. When Ignatieff returned to Canada in 2005, Rae had been elected to Parliament three times as an NDP MP, and he had been elected to the Ontario legislature many times as an MPP, serving as party leader, opposition leader, and then premier.